BookmarkletTilføj til    |
USA og Israel i et nyt politisk lavpunkt.
Udgivet for 695 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 19/03 10:12 til Boblere af toe
Hvor hurtigt man glemmer, når den ene part er Israel.
31 Oktober 2009. Udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton overdynger Israel med rosende ord, fordi de stoppede konstruktion af nye boliger på vestbreden uden at få noget til gengæld. ØstJerusalem var specifikt ikke omfattet af indrømmelserne.
1 November 2009. Det amerikanske udenrigsministerium roser Israel for dets indrømmelse af at de vil stoppe nyt byggeri på vestbreden, men ikke i Øst Jerusalem.
12 Marts 2010: Udenrigsminister Hillery Clinton udtaler at Israels byggeri i Øst Jerusalem er en fornærmelse af USA. Hvad ligger der bag denne kovending. En kovending der har fået AIPAC til at skrive nervøse vrede breve.
http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPAC_CALLS_ON_OBAMA_ADMIN_TO_DEFUSE_TENSION.pdf
Jeffrey Goldberg har været på besøg i det hvide hus
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/what-obama-is-actually-trying-to-do-in-israel/ />
"Slap af" siger det hvide hus. Vore mål er at splitte Bibis regering. Han skal tvinges til at regere fra venstre med Livni fra midter partiet Kadima. Så det er bare regimeudskiftning.
Noah Pollak håber at de vil prøve denne taktik i Teheran næste gang.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/258876
14 Kommentarer|
slettet bruger 75:„ Du mener selv, at du ønsker at gøre det bedste for samfundet,...”
Skrevet af Krauthammer fyrer kanonen af:
The Biden Incident
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract pre-emptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel - at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
The Biden Incident
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract pre-emptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel - at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel
The Biden Incident
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract pre-emptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel - at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel.
The Biden Incident
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- Why did President Barack Obama choose to turn a gaffe into a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations?
And a gaffe it was: the announcement by a bureaucrat in the Interior Ministry of a housing expansion in a Jewish neighborhood in north Jerusalem. The timing could not have been worse: Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Jerusalem is a touchy subject, and you don't bring up touchy subjects that might embarrass an honored guest.
But it was no more than a gaffe. It was certainly not a policy change, let alone a betrayal. The neighborhood is in Jerusalem, and the 2009 Netanyahu-Obama agreement was for a 10-month freeze on West Bank settlements excluding Jerusalem.
Nor was the offense intentional. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not know about this move -- step four in a seven-step approval process for construction that, at best, will not even start for two to three years.
Nonetheless the prime minister is responsible. He apologized to Biden for the embarrassment. When Biden left Israel on March 11, the apology appeared accepted and the issue resolved.
The next day, however, the administration went nuclear. After discussing with the president specific language she would use, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu to deliver a hostile and highly aggressive 45-minute message that the Biden incident had created an unprecedented crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.
Clinton's spokesman then publicly announced that Israel was now required to show in word and in deed its seriousness about peace.
Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again.
In these long and bloody 63 years, the Palestinians have not once accepted an Israeli offer of permanent peace, or ever countered with anything short of terms that would destroy Israel. They insist instead on a "peace process" -- now in its 17th post-Oslo year and still offering no credible Palestinian pledge of ultimate coexistence with a Jewish state -- the point of which is to extract pre-emptive Israeli concessions, such as a ban on Jewish construction in parts of Jerusalem conquered by Jordan in 1948, before negotiations for a real peace have even begun.
Under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to commit his center-right coalition to acceptance of a Palestinian state; took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP is growing at an astounding 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called "unprecedented."
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
Indeed, long before the Biden incident, Abbas refused even to resume direct negotiations with Israel. That's why the Obama administration has to resort to "proximity talks" -- a procedure that sets us back 35 years to before Anwar Sadat's groundbreaking visit to Jerusalem.
And Clinton demands that Israel show its seriousness about peace?
Now that's an insult.
So why this astonishing one-sidedness? Because Obama likes appeasing enemies while beating up on allies -- therefore Israel shouldn't take it personally (according to Robert Kagan)? Because Obama wants to bring down the current Israeli coalition government (according to Jeffrey Goldberg)?
Or is it because Obama fancies himself the historic redeemer whose irresistible charisma will heal the breach between Christianity and Islam or, if you will, between the post-imperial West and the Muslim world -- and has little patience for this pesky Jewish state that brazenly insists on its right to exist, and even more brazenly on permitting Jews to live in its own ancient, historical and now present capital?
Who knows? Perhaps we should ask those Obama acolytes who assured the 63 percent of Americans who support Israel - at least 97 percent of those supporters, mind you, are non-Jews -- about candidate Obama's abiding commitment to Israel
Skrevet af "Israel? Israelis have been looking for peace -- literally dying for peace -- since 1947, when they accepted the U.N. partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. (The Arabs refused and declared war. They lost.)
Israel made peace offers in 1967, 1978 and in the 1993 Oslo peace accords that Yasser Arafat tore up seven years later to launch a terror war that killed a thousand Israelis. Why, Clinton's own husband testifies to the remarkably courageous and visionary peace offer made in his presence by Ehud Barak (now Netanyahu's defense minister) at the 2000 Camp David talks. Arafat rejected it. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered equally generous terms to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Refused again."
Jeg tror ikke Krauthammer lyver. Jeg tror at han ikke kender tilstrækkeligt til baggrunden for det, han udtaler sig om. Ovenstående 'historiske gennemgang' er i hvert fald helt hen i vejret.
Jeg forstår hvorfor debatten skal være så følelsesladet.
Hvis vi antager at Israel tager alt landet vil de jødiske israelere komme i undertal i deres eget land, idet palæstinenserne får flere børn.
Så hvis israeler vil have alt landet bliver de nødt til at fjerne alle palæstinenserne. Hvilket vel konflikter med den særlige jødiske medmenneskelighed som man er så stolt af.
Derrmed er der vel ikke noget alternativ til at palæstinenserne får deres egen stat. Spørgsmålet er bare hvor grænserne skal gå og hvornår.
Resten er sang og musik.
Hvis vi antager at Israel tager alt landet vil de jødiske israelere komme i undertal i deres eget land, idet palæstinenserne får flere børn.
Så hvis israeler vil have alt landet bliver de nødt til at fjerne alle palæstinenserne. Hvilket vel konflikter med den særlige jødiske medmenneskelighed som man er så stolt af.
Derrmed er der vel ikke noget alternativ til at palæstinenserne får deres egen stat. Spørgsmålet er bare hvor grænserne skal gå og hvornår.
Resten er sang og musik.
Rettelse:
Der skal stå:
Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor debatten skal være så følelsesladet.
i første linie.
Der skal stå:
Jeg forstår ikke hvorfor debatten skal være så følelsesladet.
i første linie.
Skrevet af Jerusalem er en jødisk by mere end det er en muhammedansk. Muhammedanerne har Mekka og Medina. Hvorfor skal de også have Jerusalem og Bethlehem? Og hvorfor er vesterlændinge så skvattede, at de forærer disse centrale symboler for henholdsvis jødedommen og kristendommen væk til islam, som alliigevel blot fortsætter deres amokløb mod verdensherredømme?
Musserne må helt ud af de gamle bibelske områder. Der er rigelig plads i de arabiske lande.
Musserne må helt ud af de gamle bibelske områder. Der er rigelig plads i de arabiske lande.
Det er dig, Kimpo, der er psykopaten, som ikke lader Stalin og Hitler meget tilbage når det gælder om at varetage 'kollektivets interesser' på bekostning af individet. Stod det til mig, så var den slags uforblommede opfordringer til etniske udrensninger strafbare.
Etniske udrensninger? Hvad mener du helt præcist med etniske udrensninger?
Er det måden at debattere på, når man ikke har argumenter?
Jeg debatterer grænser og folkevandringer. Det er mildest talt god latin i disse tider, og så kommer du og beskylder mig for - ja, hvad egentlig?
Er det måden at debattere på, når man ikke har argumenter?
Jeg debatterer grænser og folkevandringer. Det er mildest talt god latin i disse tider, og så kommer du og beskylder mig for - ja, hvad egentlig?
Lad nu være med dine manipulationer. Det klæ'r dig ikke. Du skriver utvetydigt:
Musserne må helt ud af de gamle bibelske områder. Der er rigelig plads i de arabiske lande.
Det er dig som taler om psykopati, sådan helt ud af den blå luft?
Hvorfor gør du det?
Er det fordi du tillægger mig hensigten at dræbe i tusindevis af mennesker?
Ellers må du forklare, hvorfor det er psykopatisk (nazistisk forstås) at ville flytte folk fra et område til et andet, hvor der er bedre plads. Det er ganske givet ikke liberalt, men er det virkelig psykopatisk?
Og Raapil, hvorfor afsporer du egentlig debatten ved at starte en sag om min moral? Hvorfor holder du dig ikke til emnet?
Hvorfor gør du det?
Er det fordi du tillægger mig hensigten at dræbe i tusindevis af mennesker?
Ellers må du forklare, hvorfor det er psykopatisk (nazistisk forstås) at ville flytte folk fra et område til et andet, hvor der er bedre plads. Det er ganske givet ikke liberalt, men er det virkelig psykopatisk?
Og Raapil, hvorfor afsporer du egentlig debatten ved at starte en sag om min moral? Hvorfor holder du dig ikke til emnet?
Jeg tillægger dig ikke hensigten at dræbe tusinder af mennesker (selvom det er en logisk følge af etniske udrensninger), og jeg tillægger dig ikke nazisme (ikke bare nazister har gennemført etniske udrensninger, men også serbere, jøder, arabere, tyrkere mv.).
Det er psykopatisk at propagandere for etniske udrensninger, da de mennesker disse etniske udrensninger går ud over, sjældent er enige i forehavendet. Hvorfor de ikke er det, kan du jo spørge dig selv om: Ville du juble og danse, hvis 'musserne' kom for at smide dig og din familie ud af din by? Fjerne dig fra hus, hjem og livsgrundlag?
Det er psykopatien, Kimpo: at man gerne gør mod andre, hvad man ikke ønsker de skal gøre mod én selv. Vold og tvang gør lige så ondt på en araber som på dig.
Det er psykopatisk at propagandere for etniske udrensninger, da de mennesker disse etniske udrensninger går ud over, sjældent er enige i forehavendet. Hvorfor de ikke er det, kan du jo spørge dig selv om: Ville du juble og danse, hvis 'musserne' kom for at smide dig og din familie ud af din by? Fjerne dig fra hus, hjem og livsgrundlag?
Det er psykopatien, Kimpo: at man gerne gør mod andre, hvad man ikke ønsker de skal gøre mod én selv. Vold og tvang gør lige så ondt på en araber som på dig.
Fantastisk dobbelttale. Du vil tydeligvis ikke tage ansvar for at tillægge mig den onde hensigt. Man må forstå, at jeg er for dum til at gennemtænke den morderiske konsekvens. Og i forlængelse af dette kommer pædagogen op i dig: Jeg er et tungnemt barn, der ikke kan sætte sig i andre menneskers sted. Alligevel beskrives jeg med ordet "psykopat", hvilket klinisk set passer til det tungnemme afstumpede barn, men i læsernes øjne naturligvis også tildeler mig ansvaret for de onde konsekvenser. Således har du udført dit beskidte arbejde med at stemple mig som kvasinazist uden at få smuds på ærmerne. Gøbbels' disciple har sandelig forfinet kunsten.
For nu at komme tættere på emnet:
Det her handler ikke om min moral, Raapil, men om min bedømmelse af situationen. Politik handler for mig og andre ganske ofte om "det mindre onde", og jeg mener det er et mindre onde at adskille folk der vil slås til døden end at lade kimen til den evige borgerkrig og evt. kommende storkrig vokse. Der er simpelthen for mange jødehadere indenfor Israels grænser til at det kan gå godt. De forsvinder ikke selv, eftersom deres mål er at kyle jøderne ud af deres land, og af samme grund bliver de aldrig fredelige israelske borgere. Og se på et landkort: Israel er på størrelsemed Jylland. Syrien og Jordan derimod...
For nu at komme tættere på emnet:
Det her handler ikke om min moral, Raapil, men om min bedømmelse af situationen. Politik handler for mig og andre ganske ofte om "det mindre onde", og jeg mener det er et mindre onde at adskille folk der vil slås til døden end at lade kimen til den evige borgerkrig og evt. kommende storkrig vokse. Der er simpelthen for mange jødehadere indenfor Israels grænser til at det kan gå godt. De forsvinder ikke selv, eftersom deres mål er at kyle jøderne ud af deres land, og af samme grund bliver de aldrig fredelige israelske borgere. Og se på et landkort: Israel er på størrelsemed Jylland. Syrien og Jordan derimod...
Du mener selv, at du ønsker at gøre det bedste for samfundet, og derfor kan man ikke beskylde dig for ondskab. Som du selv skriver, så mener du det er et spørgsmål om valg mellem mindre og større onder, og det er for så vidt et fair synspunkt.
Alligevel er det psykopatisk ikke at have medfølelse med andre mennesker og manipulere med deres tilværelse. Det er stort set definitionen på psykopati, men det betyder ikke at du lider af en personlig psykopati. Den er politisk motiveret og social - du deler den med mange andre.
Du sætter dig op som dommer over hvad der er større og mindre lidelser, men så vidt jeg ved er der kun én instans, der sidder inde med endelige opgørelser over den menneskelige lidelse.
Du ved simpelthen ikke, hvad der fører til større og mindre lidelser, og det er svært at tro på andet, end at du dybest set er ligeglad. Dit tilsyneladende objektive 'mindre onde' er egentlig 'vores mindre onde', og vores mindre onde kerer sig ikke om de folk der bliver tvangsflyttet, palæstinenserne. Andre vil uden tvivl kunne nå frem til, at det er 'et mindre onde' at tvangsflytte jøderne, men selv tør jeg overhovedet ikke dømme den slags.
At tvangsflytte mennnesker er et overgreb på deres liv, der kun er få grader mindre slemt end folkemord. Der er altså god grund til at overveje alle andre løsninger, herunder den indlysende at Israel omdannes til et ægte demokrati med lige pligter og rettigheder for alle borgere.
Når du mener at palæstinenserne skal smides ud af Storisrael, så kunne det hænge sammen med, at 'musserne' er din og zionisternes fælles fjende, og at det vil skabe en fin præcedens hvis det lykkes de rabiate af zionisterne at udrense Storisrael. Det er spekulation fra min side, men du skal ikke komme og bilde mig ind, at du antager en objektiv holdning, når du vover at gøre dig selv til Gud og vurdere hvad større og mindre onder er.
Alligevel er det psykopatisk ikke at have medfølelse med andre mennesker og manipulere med deres tilværelse. Det er stort set definitionen på psykopati, men det betyder ikke at du lider af en personlig psykopati. Den er politisk motiveret og social - du deler den med mange andre.
Du sætter dig op som dommer over hvad der er større og mindre lidelser, men så vidt jeg ved er der kun én instans, der sidder inde med endelige opgørelser over den menneskelige lidelse.
Du ved simpelthen ikke, hvad der fører til større og mindre lidelser, og det er svært at tro på andet, end at du dybest set er ligeglad. Dit tilsyneladende objektive 'mindre onde' er egentlig 'vores mindre onde', og vores mindre onde kerer sig ikke om de folk der bliver tvangsflyttet, palæstinenserne. Andre vil uden tvivl kunne nå frem til, at det er 'et mindre onde' at tvangsflytte jøderne, men selv tør jeg overhovedet ikke dømme den slags.
At tvangsflytte mennnesker er et overgreb på deres liv, der kun er få grader mindre slemt end folkemord. Der er altså god grund til at overveje alle andre løsninger, herunder den indlysende at Israel omdannes til et ægte demokrati med lige pligter og rettigheder for alle borgere.
Når du mener at palæstinenserne skal smides ud af Storisrael, så kunne det hænge sammen med, at 'musserne' er din og zionisternes fælles fjende, og at det vil skabe en fin præcedens hvis det lykkes de rabiate af zionisterne at udrense Storisrael. Det er spekulation fra min side, men du skal ikke komme og bilde mig ind, at du antager en objektiv holdning, når du vover at gøre dig selv til Gud og vurdere hvad større og mindre onder er.
Du skal være logget ind for at kommentere artikler. Du kan logge ind her!
Flere artikler fra Udland
Iran er på vej med atomnyheder - Globalt | www.b.dk
 | ||
Udgivet for 14 timer og 51 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 11/02 20:47 til Boblere af Ola Hansen
Kilde: b.dk
0 KommentarerJP Blogs: Republikanere og andet godtfolk - Blog forum - deltag i debatten
 | ||
Udgivet for 1 dag og 52 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 11/02 10:48 til Boblere af Christoffer Melson
Kilde: blogs.jp.dk
4 KommentarerLykken er en mzungu
 | ||
Udgivet for 1 dag, 2 timer og 48 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 11/02 09:35 til Boblere af Jesper Ørsted
Kilde: metroxpress.dk
Ekstra Bladet - Somaliske terrorister optaget i al-Qaeda
 | ||
Udgivet for 1 dag, 17 timer og 13 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 10/02 18:19 til Boblere af Ola Hansen
Kilde: ekstrabladet.dk
Maksim Gorkij - humanismens forfatter
Udgivet for 1 dag, 20 timer og 6 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 10/02 14:11 til Boblere af Thomas Petersen
Græsk regeringsparti nægter at stemme for spareplan - Politiken.dk
 | ||
Udgivet for 1 dag, 13 timer og 35 minutter siden i Udland
Tilføjet 10/02 15:24 til Boblere af Ola Hansen
Kilde: politiken.dk
Papkasselejren i Moskva med de gode hensigter
Udgivet for 2 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 09/02 14:55 til Boblere af Thomas Petersen
Grækenland løber bogstaveligt talt tør for euro
 | ||
Udgivet for 3 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 09/02 09:22 til Boblere af Gold Standard
Kilde: business.dk
Storbritannien vil indføre kemiske våben mod uroligheder
 | ||
Udgivet for 2 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 09/02 10:53 til Boblere af Hammersmeden
Kilde: youtube.com
Første Verdenskrigs sidste veteran er død
 | ||
Udgivet for 2 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 09/02 14:41 til Boblere af Jesper Ørsted
Kilde: politiken.dk
For Greece a tear, for Brussels a blush
 | ||
Udgivet for 3 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 08/02 19:02 til Boblere af jacobfiil
Kilde: blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Krig og heroisme
 | ||
Udgivet for 3 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 08/02 14:50 til Boblere af Anti- Karl
Kilde: lewrockwell.com
SPIEGEL ONLINE: It's Time To End the Greek Rescue Farce
 | ||
Udgivet for 4 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 07/02 21:42 til Boblere af Svend Andersen
Kilde: spiegel.de
Romneys lead dips despite wins: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters
 | ||
Udgivet for 3 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 07/02 22:43 til Boblere af Michel Larsson
Kilde: reuters.com
EU støtter anti-semitisk terrororganisation
 | ||
Udgivet for 4 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 07/02 11:57 til Boblere af Henrik Ræder Clausen
Kilde: euobserver.com
Nå, så skal vi vel erobre Skåne, Halland og Blekinge tilbage?
 | ||
Udgivet for 3 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 07/02 16:05 til Boblere af abel
Kilde: nyhederne.tv2.dk
De lever af affald | information.dk
 | ||
Udgivet for 5 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 06/02 14:58 til Boblere af Filip Ulrichsen
Kilde: information.dk
Grækerne vil skære 15.000 job væk
 | ||
Udgivet for 5 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 06/02 20:50 til Boblere af Kristian Oestergaard
Kilde: epn.dk
Britisk dommer sætter »national sikkerhedstrussel« på fri fod - Politiken.dk
 | ||
Udgivet for 5 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 06/02 21:59 til Boblere af Ola Hansen
Kilde: politiken.dk
Kina nægter at betale CO2-afgifter for flyenes afgange og ankomster
 | ||
Udgivet for 5 dage siden i Udland
Tilføjet 06/02 16:05 til Boblere af Hammersmeden
Kilde: de.euronews.net
|
Om toe Se toes profil eller Følg toe |
|
Avis: S og SF skjulte regnestykke bag ringen 12/02 08:49 - 201 klik
JP's leder om leksikon.org: Propagandisterne 12/02 06:54 - 155 klik
DMI totalt til grin: 2011 var et meget varmt år! 11/02 22:33 - 134 klik
Svend Auken: Betal mine dummebøder, eller jeg smadrer dig! 11/02 23:50 - 133 klik
Juicekæde risikerer kæmperegning efter kontrolbesøg - Media | www.business.dk 11/02 10:36 - 944 klik
Radikal: Jeg håber jeres kæreste dør 11/02 18:18 - 467 klik
Vindmøller og den forbudte kernekraft. 11/02 12:42 - 456 klik
Skal staten begrænse rygning? - se JBO i clinch med Flemming Møller Mortensen 09/02 20:41 - 410 klik
Klummer
|
Danmark som forgangsland Tilføjet 09/02 17:21 af Allan H. Nielsen |
|
Fra Hayek til de Historieløse Tilføjet 05/02 13:50 af Kasper Planeta Kepp |
|
Tobinskat: Den forkerte løsning på det forkerte problem Tilføjet 31/01 09:44 af Henrik Ræder Clausen |
|
Er de nyuddannede og studerende simpelthen bare for forkælede? Tilføjet 28/01 19:19 af Maria Holme Overgaard |
|
Skolens stjernestunder Tilføjet 26/01 08:37 af Lasse Birk Olesen |
| Flere klummer | |